98 



D. JAUME AND G.A. BOXSHALL 



status by Sars (1919-1921). This variety is supposed to inhabit 

 deeper waters and never to occur in the littoral zone (Sars, 1913- 

 1918; 1919-1921). 



According to Sars (1913-1918)£. longicauda carries only modi- 

 fied flanged spines on the inner margin of the third exopodal 

 segment of leg 2. In our material the proximalmost element on the 

 inner margin of this segment is a plumose seta (Fig. 10B). However, 

 this may be an observational error by Sars since material of E. 

 longicauda from Raunefjorden in Norway (BMNH 1986.387) and 

 from Scotland (BMNH 1951.8.10.587) in the collections of the 

 Natural History Museum possesses a plumose seta in this position, 

 as in the Mallorcan material. 



REVIEW OF EURYTE SPECIES 



The eight remaining species of Euryte are briefly reviewed here, in 

 order to facilitate the identification of representatives of this prob- 

 lematic genus. The review is essentially comparative and emphasises 

 the most robust and reliable characters available in published de- 

 scriptions. 



E. curticornis Sars, 1913 is characterised by short, 21 -segmented 

 female antennules and the shortened third segment of the maxilliped; 

 the curved distal claws on this appendage are also reduced in size 

 and subsimilar in length. These features contrast with the maxilliped 

 of E. longicauda, which is provided with an elongate third segment 

 and with long, unequal distal claws. The distal spines on the third 

 segment of endopod of leg 1 are clearly unequal in length in E. 

 curticornis, whereas in E. longicauda they are about equal. 



E. longicauda can be distinguished from E. grata Herbst, 1989 

 and E. verecunda Humes, 1992 by some features of the maxilla and 

 maxilliped. In E. verecunda, the proximal spine on the distal coxal 

 endite of maxilla is adorned on both sides with slender spinules. On 

 the maxilliped, the armature element on the proximal syncoxal 

 endite is a seta in E. longicauda, whereas in E. grata and E. 

 verecunda this endite is represented by a stout spine. E. verecunda 

 differs additionally in the setose condition of the armature elements 

 on the inner margin of the second endopodal segment of leg 4; these 

 elements are flanged spines in£. longicauda. The generic placement 

 off. verecunda needs verification since, according to Humes ( 1 992), 

 this species displays a 2-segmented condition of leg 5. This is a 

 characteristic of the genus Ancheuryte Herbst, 1989, whereas in 

 Euryte leg 5 is 3-segmented in both sexes. 



In E. pseudorobustaVervoort, 1964 two distal setae are present in 

 the outer margin of the antennary coxobasis, whereas there is only 1 

 seta in E. longicauda. The proximal spine on the distal coxal endite 

 of maxilla has a different armature in the two species, with a row of 

 setules along each side in E. pseudorobusta. Finally, the caudal rami 

 of E. pseudorobusta are short, about as long as the anal segment, and 

 differ significantly from the elongate caudal rami off. longicauda. 



Two other species, each described from a single female from the 

 Addu Atoll (Maldives), viz. E. brevicauda Sewell, 1949 and E. 

 sewelli Vervoort, 1964 (= 'Euryte sp.' of Sewell, 1949) also differ 

 from E. longicauda in their very short caudal rami. The status of E. 

 sewelli Vervoort, 1964 as a distinct species from E. brevicauda is 

 equivocal (Vervoort, 1964; Sewell 1949). The main difference be- 

 tween them is the apparently 18-segmented female antennule in the 

 former species. Unfortunately, Sewell's (1949) original material is 

 not preserved, thus precluding verification. However, if Sewell's 

 illustrations are accurate, the 18-segmented antennule, combined 

 with the absence of the inner seta on the proximal segment of exopod 

 of leg 1 , can be used as diagnostic characters of this taxon. 



E. longicauda differs from E. bellatula Humes, 1 99 1 in the nature 

 of the two armature elements on the inner margin of the second 

 endopodal segment of leg 4; these are flanged spines in the former 

 species, whereas in the latter they are setae. E. bellatula also has the 

 proximal spine on the distal coxal endite of maxilla armed with a row 

 of thin spinules on both sides. As commented above for£. verecunda, 

 the generic placement of E. bellatula must be confirmed due to the 

 apparently 2-segmented condition of the leg 5. The association with 

 corals of the two taxa described by Humes is similar to the life-style 

 of Ancheuryte, a closely related genus characterized by its 2-seg- 

 mented leg 5. 



The status of E. similis Scott, 1912, originally described from the 

 South Orkneys and never found since, is debatable. Scott pointed out 

 its similarity to E. robusta, and that it appeared '. . . to differ in one 

 or two minor points, such as in the armature of the first and fourth 

 pairs of thoracic legs and in the proportional lengths of the abdomi- 

 nal segments' (Scott, 1912). The differences in the armature of the 

 swimming legs mentioned by Scott in the text do not correspond 

 with his figures. Also, as Sewell (1949) already pointed out, it seems 

 certain that Scott had confused the legs so that his second leg is in 

 reality the fourth, and his fourth leg is either the second or third. In 

 fact, the original description is very superficial and does not permit 

 any conclusion other than that the taxon belongs to Euryte. The only 

 apparent diagnostic features displayed by this taxon could be the 

 lack of an inner seta on both the first endopodal and first exopodal 

 segments of leg 4 (Scott's leg 2). This is unreliable, however, since 

 the number of armature elements on the swimming legs is a very 

 conservative character at the generic level in the Cyclopidae. In our 

 opinion, given the lack of type material, this taxon should be 

 considered species inquirendum. 



Acknowledgements. We want to thank J. Pons-Moya and G. Pons their 

 support during fieldwork, and Dr Rony Huys and Prof Carlos Eduardo 

 Falavigna da Rocha for their detailed comments and improvements to the 

 manuscript. Contribution to project DGICYT PB9 1-0055 and EC Training 

 Research Contract ERBCHBICT941306. 



REFERENCES 



Aguesse P.C. & Dussart, B.H. 1956. Sur quelques crustaces de Camargue et leur 



ecologie. Vie et Milieu. 7: 481-520. 

 Andrews, J.N., Gines, A., Gines, J., Pons-Moya, J., Smart, P.L. & "Was, M. 1989. 



Noves dades sobre el jaciment paleontologic de la Cova de na Barxa (Capdepera). 



Endins, 14/15: 17-26. 

 Boxshall, G.A. & Evstigneeva, T.D. 1 994. The evolution of species flocks of copepods 



in Lake Baikal: a preliminary analysis. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie Beiheft Ergebnisse 



der Limnologie, 44: 235-245. 

 Brady, G.S. 1910. Die marinen Copepoden der Deutschen Sudpolar Expedition 1 90 1- 



1 903. 1. Uber die Copepoden der Stamme Harpacticoida. Cyclopoida. Notodelphyoida 



und Caligoida. Deutsche Sudpolar-Expedition. 1901-1903. 11 (Zool. 3): 497-593, 



pis. 52-63. 

 Brian, A. 1938. Description d'une nouvelle espece de copepode cyclopoide du genre 



Cyclopina. Bulletin de la Societe zoologique de France. 63: 13-18. 

 Ekman, S. 1953. Zoogeography of the Sea .417 pp. Sidgwick and Jackson Ltd. London. 

 Fiers, F. 1986. New and interesting copepods (Crustacea, Copepoda) from brackish 



waters of Laing Island (Northern Papua New Guinea). Bulletin de llnstitut royal des 



Sciences naturelles de Belgique (Biologie}. 56: 99-120. 

 Fosshagen, A. & Iliffe, T.M. 1985. Two new genera of Calanoida and a new order of 



Copepoda, Platycopioida. from marine caves on Bermuda. Sarsia. 70: 345-358. 

 Giesbrecht, W. 1 900. Mittheilungen uber Copepoden. 12. Die litoralen Cyclopiden des 



Golfes von Neapel. Mittheilungen aus der zoologischen Station zu Neapel, 14: 39- 



82, pis. 1-5. 

 Gines, A., Gines, J. & Pons-Moya, J. 1975. Nuevas aportaciones al conocimiento 



morfologico y cronologico de las cavernas costeras mallorquinas. Speleon. 



Monografi'a 1: 49-56. 



